Press Alt + R to read the document text or Alt + P to download or print.
This document contains no pages.
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/20/2015 Business Meeting278
YAKIMACITY COUNCIL
October 20, 2015
City Hall -- Council Chambers
6 p.m. Business Meeting; 6:30 Public Hearings
BUSINESS MEETING
1. Roll Call
Council: Mayor Micah Cawley, presiding, Assistant Mayor Kathy Coffey, Council Members
Maureen Adkison, Dave Ettl and Bill Lover
Staff: City Manager O'Rourke, City Attorney Harvey and City Clerk Claar Tee
Absent: Council Members Tom Dittmar (excused) Rick Ensey (excused)
2. Pledge of Allegiance
Mayor Cawley led the Pledge of Allegiance.
3. Open Discussions for the Good of the Order
4. Council Reports
A. Consideration of 2016 State Legislative & Administrative Priorities
Randy Beehler, Communications and Public Affairs Director, briefed Council on the
priorities. Council Member Lover stated he doesn't think the Central Plaza should be on
the list.
MOTION: Lover moved to postpone approval of the legislative priorities until January. The
motion died due to lack of a second. After further Council discussion,
MOTION: Adkison moved and Ettl seconded to approve the 2016 State Legislative
and Administrative Priorities. The motion carried by a 4-1 vote, Lover voting no,
Dittmar and Ensey absent.
5. Consent Agenda
Mayor Cawley referred to the items placed on the Consent Agenda, questioning whether
there were any additions or deletions from Council members or citizens present. Items 5C
and 5D were postponed. The City Clerk read the Consent Agenda items, including
resolutions and ordinances, by title. (Items on the Consent Agenda are handled under one
motion without further discussion—see motion directly below.)
MOTION: Coffey moved and Adkison seconded to approve the consent agenda,
except for items 5C and 5D, which are postponed. The motion carried by unanimous
Page 1 of 8
279
vote, Dittmar and Ensey absent.
A. Approval of the minutes from the August 18, September 1, September 15 and
October 6, 2015 City Council Business meetings; and September 22 and 29,
2015 Council Study Sessions
B. 3rd Quarter 2015 Claim Report and Resolution authorizing and approving 3rd
Quarter 2015 claims activity
RESOLUTION NO. R-2015-121, A RESOLUTION accepting and approving the 3rd
Quarter 2015 Claim Report for the City of Yakima.
C. Resolution authorizing a Memorandum of Understanding and Engagement with
Mid -Columbia Fisheries Enhancement Group for the City Wastewater Treatment
Plant Flood Plain Restoration Project
This item was postponed.
D. Resolution authorizing a Memorandum of Understanding and Engagement with
Mid -Columbia Fisheries Enhancement Group for the City Wastewater Treatment
Plant Riparian Restoration Project
This item was postponed.
E. Resolution authorizing a Grant Agreement with Washington State Department of
Transportation to fund the Yakima/Ellensburg Commuter Service and the
Paratransit Services (Dial A Ride) in Yakima and Selah
RESOLUTION NO. R-2015-122, A RESOLUTION authorizing the City Manager to enter
into a grant agreement with Washington State Department of Transportation to fund
commuter bus service between Yakima and Ellensburg and to fund paratransit services
(Dial A Ride) in Yakima and Selah.
F.
Resolution authorizing an Interlocal Agreement with Central Washington
University to partially fund the Yakima/Ellensburg Commuter Service from July 1,
2015 to June 30, 2017
RESOLUTION NO. R-2015-123, A RESOLUTION authorizing the City Manager to enter
into an interlocal agreement with Central Washington University to partially fund commuter
bus service between Yakima and Ellensburg for two years.
G. Resolution authorizing an Interlocal Agreement with the City of Selah to partially
fund the Yakima/Ellensburg Commuter Service from July 1, 2015 through June
30, 2017
RESOLUTION NO. R-2015-124, A RESOLUTION adopting a resolution authorizing the
City Manager to enter into an interlocal agreement with the City of Selah to partially fund
commuter bus service between Yakima and Ellensburg for two years.
H.
Resolution authorizing an agreement with Play Creation and Landscape
Structures for the purchase of playground equipment to be placed at Southeast
Community Park
RESOLUTION NO. R-2015-125, A RESOLUTION authorizing the City Manager to execute
Page 2 of 8
280
an agreement with Play Creation and Landscape Structures for the purchase of
playground equipment to be placed at Southeast Community Park.
Resolution authorizing an agreement with the State of Washington by and
through the Recreation and Conservation Funding Board (RCFB) and the
Recreation and Conservation Office (RCO) for the grant to renovate Randall
Park
RESOLUTION NO. R-2015-126, A RESOLUTION authorizing the City Manager to
execute the project agreement between the City of Yakima and the State of Washington by
and through the Recreation and Conservation Funding Board (RCFB) and the Recreation
and Conservation Office (RCO) for the grant to renovate Randall Park.
6. Audience Participation
John Tull, City resident, asked Council members to reconsider the special event fee
ordinance, which requires their charity event to pay for half of the police escort costs.
Amy Flyn, City resident, and Interim Executive Director of the YWCA, also requested
Council members to reconsider the special event police escort fees.
It was Council consensus to bring back additional information on the special event
ordinance to the October 27, 2015 City Council Study Session.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
7 Public meeting to consider citizen comments on the proposed 2016 Annual Action Plan
for Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and HOME Fund Programs
Archie Matthews, ONDS Manager, briefed Council on the 2016 Action Plan.
Mayor Cawley opened the public hearing and, with no one coming forward to speak,
closed the hearing.
Mr. Matthews reported no action is necessary at this meeting, and it is scheduled for
another public hearing on November 3, 2015.
8. Public hearing and resolution on the proposed Development Agreement of Catalyss
(formerly Toscanna) located in the vicinity of 40th Ave and Castlevale
Mayor Cawley noted this item is postponed; however, since there is a notice of public
hearing, he opened the hearing for comments.
Ron Hatfield, City resident, related some history with the project and noted when the
Hearing Examiner approved the project in 2009, he did so with a stipulation that, if the draft
development agreement required any minor modifications it must undergo a type (2)
review rather than type (1) review, which means public notice must be given to the
neighbors. He doesn't feel the stipulation has been followed.
Valerie Smith, Senior Planner, stated this issue is regarding a planned development
agreement that was approved by Council in 2009. The development agreement has a
requirement that prior approval to be accomplished before they can start building. There
were some complications with the development agreement and the owners decided to
Page 3 of 8
281
postpone the hearing until November. She noted they are approved to do their initial
infrastructure, such as roads, which has been started. There was an addendum done to
the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) to include more fill dirt than expected to
complete the project.
Jeff Peters, Supervising Planner, reported there are two different issues. An original
environmental review was completed with the preliminary plat, where an environmental
decision was issued as a mitigated determination of non -significance. The SEPA check-
list was noticed to the neighbors, and included a certain amount of grading, excavating and
moving of dirt. Under SEPA, a project that does not materially change to create an
environmental impact, and if the change is minor in nature, does not have to be re -noticed
or go through another SEPA process. The Planning Division determined it was a
minuscule amount of dirt that was not covered in the original SEPA; therefore, it went
through the addendum process. That process does not require notice because it is an
insignificant change and it does not change the environmental impact of the original
proposal.
9. Continuation of public hearing for an appeal of the Hearing Examiner's decision upholding
the approval of an expansion of the Union Gospel Mission clinic, parking lot, and
residential area at 1300 N. 1st Street
Senior Assistant City Attorney Kunkler stated the hearing is a quasi-judicial matter,
regarding the appeal of two permit approvals, which were approved by the Hearing
Examiner in favor of the Union Gospel Mission (UGM). The first permit is for gated
parking/pavement on the lot to allow UGM access to its property from Oak Street for the
use of delivery and maintenance of the UGM. The second permit is for the construction of
a health care clinic and second story dormitory to accommodate 10 women, and 28 men.
The additional residents would not exceed the original population limit of 260. The permits
were appealed by William Brado and the Yakima Gateway Organization (YGO).
Mr. Andreotti represented Mr. Brado and YGO, and James Carmody appeared on behalf
of the UGM.
Because this is a quasi-judicial hearing involving permits, there is an appearance of
fairness doctrine, with Council as judges. Mr. Kunkler asked Council if they have any
interest in the property or the application, or if they own property within 300 feet of UGM.
Council stated they did not. He asked Council members if they individually stand to gain or
lose a financial benefit; the response was no. Next, he asked if they can consider the
appeal in a fair and objective manner. They stated they could. He asked if Council has
engaged in any exparte communications with any of the parties involved. Council Member
Lover noted he knows everyone involved in the project and has heard from Mr. Brado, as
well as the Union Gospel Mission, and believes he can be fair and impartial. Assistant
Mayor Coffey noted as the Executive Director of the Visitors and Convention Bureau in the
1990's, she was opposed to the Union Gospel Mission's original application, but she has
recently toured the Mission, and believes she can be fair and impartial. Mr. Kunkler asked
if there were any members of the audience that challenge, on appearance of fairness
grounds, participation in the matter by any member of the City Council. No one from the
audience spoke to the matter.
In his opening statement, Pat Andreotti, representing Mr. Brado, gave a brief history of the
project. He stated that what has happened in the past is significant and bears on what
Page 4of8
282
Council has to decide. Mr. Andreotti believes the testimony presented in 1992 goes a long
way to establish that Mr. Lamb made the wrong call and failed to establish adequate
conditions for the mission operations to protect the North First Street businesses. He said
at this point, the City must recognize the settlement agreement agreed to by the parties in
1994 is governing this situation even though the City is not a party to the agreement.
Mr. Andreotti asked to have the compatibility portion remanded to the Planning Division to
adopt the provisions of the 1994 settlement agreement and to impose any additional
reasonable conditions. Regarding the current action, the City, the UGM and the Hearing
Examiner have talked about compatibility but not about the new proposed uses. A medical
clinic would add to existing problems. He asked Council to direct staff to take another look
at this and to incorporate the settlement agreement, which both the City and the North First
Street businesses relied upon in allowing this use to proceed to where it is now. He also
noted the City experienced a computer glitch and did not give proper notice to the
neighboring businesses and property owners. It was called to the City's attention on March
27, 2015, and the City issued a stop work order on the parking lot, but did not withdraw the
prior decision. After appealing, the City did a supplemental notice, but on a decision
already made. The only adequate way to resolve the notice issue regarding the parking lot
is to have the decision reversed and sent back to City Planning for review.
Mr. Andreotti stated that the final issue is the access off North First Street, as the
settlement agreement specifically provided there would be no access except for services
or utilities. It is YGO's position that the access off Oak Street is limited to the delivery of
utility services and that the provision for a gate is inappropriate and should be reversed.
Council should remand both applications to the City for further review to require, consistent
with the agreement, a Class (3) review be done, provide for adequate notice of both
applications and direct the Planning Division to propose appropriate conditions, including
those specified in the 1994 settlement agreement, to ensure compatibility of mission
operations with businesses that still exist on North First Street.
James Carmody, representing UGM, referenced the two applications in his opening
statement. Regarding compliance with the 1994 settlement agreement, he stated that the
Hearing Examiner came to the conclusion that UGM has complied with each and every
condition imposed on that settlement agreement. The Hearing Examiner found, as City
staff found earlier, that the uses were appropriate, and UGM complied with all
development standards. Mr. Carmody stated he agrees with Mr. Andreotti about parking lot
notice issue. However, there was no notice issue with respect to the medical clinic. When
it came to the issue of paving the parking lot and a question about whether or not there had
been notice given to neighbors, the City stopped work on this project to make sure the
community had the opportunity to comment.
Mr. Carmody asserted that the Hearing Examiner listened to all the evidence and made a
decision. The Hearing Examiner also asked City staff if they heard anything more in this
hearing process that would change anything decided earlier, that would change any of the
conditions, or anything more, and staff said no. Mr. Carmody said if the matter is
remanded, the same thing will happen. No one was denied any opportunity to participate
before the Hearing Examiner. He also stated that the City doesn't have authority to enforce
a private development agreement and if there's a breach YGO can sue the mission. The
final argument YGO has made is that there should be limitations from Oak Street access.
Mr. Carmody said that limitation is in place; Oak Street is gated, not accessible and is
compliant with the settlement agreement. There are two applications to consider and City
staff found they are compliant and have met all standards and the Hearing Examiner found
Page 5 of 8
283
them compliant. Those processes need to be respected and supported, and he asked the
City Council to deny the appeal and to let UGM proceed with their parking lot and medical
facility.
Senior Assistant City Attorney Kunkler reported that anyone who reads the Hearing
Examiner's Decision in this case will conclude that the Hearing Examiner considered and
addressed all issues raised by the Appellants in a comprehensive manner. The Hearing
Examiner rejected all grounds of appeal raised by the Appellants and upheld the City's
decisions in the parking lot and health care clinic/residential improvement applications
submitted by the Union Gospel Mission.
Mr. Kunkler continued, saying that the Union Gospel Mission and Yakima Gateway
Organization entered into a private Settlement Agreement in 1994. The City of Yakima was
not a party to this agreement and does not have standing to enforce any provision of such
agreement. As noted by the Hearing Examiner, the Settlement Agreement is akin to a
private covenant often entered into between private parties governing the use of certain
property. However, the City has no jurisdiction to enforce such covenants. Also, Mr.
Kunkler noted the City undertook extensive efforts to correct a notification error on the
Parking Lot permit. When it learned of the computer error, the City issued a Stop Work
Order, consolidated the Parking Lot application decision with the Health Care/Residential
Improvement application, and issued a Supplemental Notice of Application and Appeal.
All parties of record and owners of property within 300 feet of the mission site were
afforded an opportunity to comment and participate in the appeal filed by Appellants. No
person was barred from presenting evidence and testimony at the appeal hearing, and all
persons having any interest in the consolidated projects were allowed to participate. The
Hearing Examiner found and ruled that the City cured any problem with defective notice
and had substantially complied with the central purpose of the notice provisions.
In his conclusion Mr. Kunkler said that the Hearing Examiner ruled that the proposed
improvements, with the conditions imposed, were compatible with the zoning district and
comprehensive plan. He reminded that this hearing is a quasi-judicial hearing, and the
decisions and determinations of the Hearing Examiner are entitled to deference. The City
of Yakima requested the Decision of the Hearing Examiner be affirmed in all respects and
Appellants' appeal be denied.
In his rebuttal, Mr. Andreotti stated the issue, apart from the notice issue, is the access
off Oak Street, which creates a whole new set of problems, particularly for Mr. Brado's
apartments located directly across from that access. With regard to the expanded
operations, Mr. Andreotti asserted there was no testimony that ten percent of the new
clients or patients to be served were already residents of the facility. Executive Director
Phillips specifically acknowledged that a portion of the people that were creating the
issues for the North First Street businesses, although not Mission residents, were coming
to the Mission for services. But it was the position of the Mission that once they left the
Mission premises, the Mission had no responsibility and no authority to do anything to
control their conduct. Those are issues the Hearing Examiner failed to address, staff failed
to address regarding compatibility, and we renew our request that this matter be reversed
and sent back.
Mayor Cawley opened the public hearing.
The following individuals spoke in support of the Union Gospel Mission: Kris Fork, City
Page 6of8
284
resident; Alondra Garibay, City resident; Stephanie Carlson; and Bryan Crafts.
Dorothy Padilla, City resident, spoke in support of Mr. Brado's appeal, but noted the good
work the Mission accomplishes.
With no one else coming forward, Mayor Cawley closed the hearing.
Mr. Kunkler reiterated the options for Council action which are to grant the appeal, remand
it back to the Hearing Examiner with direction regarding specific elements or to deny the
appeal and affirm the Hearing Examiner's decision.
MOTION: Cawley moved and Adkison seconded to deny the appeal and affirm the
Hearing Examiner's decision. The motion carried by unanimous vote, Dittmar and
Ensey absent.
CITY MANAGER REPORTS
10. Resolution related to Recommendation from Arts Commission regarding Fair Avenue
Roundabout Heritage Art
Community Development Manager Davenport briefed Council on the item. Assistant Mayor
Coffey noted she would like the City to accept donation of the steam whistle. Council
Member Lover wants to relocate the water feature at the park and ride. City Manager
O'Rourke noted staff will bring back ideas on moving the water feature.
The City Clerk read the resolution by title only.
RESOLUTION NO. R-2015-127, A RESOLUTION accepting donation from the owners of
the former Cascade Mill of heritage items to be used as public artwork and authorizing
display such in the street right of way at the Fair Avenue Roundabout.
MOTION: Coffey moved and EttI seconded to adopt the resolution. The motion
carried by a 4-1 vote, Lover voting no, Dittmar and Ensey absent.
11. Other Business
Assistant Mayor Coffey reported in the absence of the Mayor she has been working with
staff on the City Manager recruitment process and believes it should be added to the next
Study Session agenda.
12. Adjournment
Motion: Coffey moved and Lover seconded to adjourn to a City Council Study
Session on October 27, 2015 at 10 a.m. in the Council Chambers at City Hall. The
motion carried by unanimous vote, Dittmar and Ensey absent. The meeting adjourned
at 8:28 p.m.
CERTIFICATION
READ AND CERTIFIED ACCURATE BY
1
COUN IL MEMBER
0-a(3--L
C--
-01) 1 DATE
Page 7 of 8
ATTEST:
1
lie/4S
�C UNCIL MEMBER DATE
Page 8 of 8
285